2015 (7) TMI 1417 - HC - Customs

Import of used tyres - hazardous waste - confiscation - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), CHENNAI VERSUS VS. GOVINDAN 2013 (2) TMI 638 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that as per the United Nations Environmental Programme vis- -vis Basel Convention regarding Pneumatic tyres, the lifetime of an original tyre casing must not exceed seven years. Having perused the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and more particularly definition of clause hazardous waste and provisions of Rules, 12, 13, 16 and 23 of the said Rules along with Part B of Schedule III of the said Rules, it is held that the responsible authority / officer of Respondent No.2, Ministry of Environment and Forests, through Joint Director, HSM Division, 2nd Floor, Jal Block, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi-110003 shall visit the place where the goods in dispute i.e. waste pneumatic tyres are lying. Such Officer should be an expert who possesses the expertise to give the opinion about the quality of the pneumatic tyres. Such Officer shall give a detailed report with regard waste pneumatic tyres and shall specifically opine whether aforesaid pneumatic tyres are reusuable, retreadable, etc. as provided at entry No.B3140 of Part B of Schedule III to the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Disposal) Rules, 2008. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Hazardous Wastes Rules 2008, Expert opinion on waste pneumatic tyres, Customs authority's role in releasing goods

In the judgment, the court heard arguments from both parties and considered the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. Specifically, the court analyzed the definition of 'hazardous waste' and various provisions of the Rules, including Rules 12, 13, 16, and 23, along with Part B of Schedule III. The court also took into account previous decisions by CESTAT and other cases to issue interim directions. These directions included requiring an expert officer from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to visit the location of waste pneumatic tyres and provide a detailed report within 10 days on whether the tyres are reusable or retreadable as per the Rules. The report was to be shared with the petitioner and customs authorities within two weeks. Once the report was received, the petitioner could request the customs authority for the release of the goods, and the customs authority would decide on the release based on the report and applicable laws.

The judgment focused on ensuring compliance with the Hazardous Wastes Rules 2008 and obtaining an expert opinion on the nature of waste pneumatic tyres to determine if they could be released. The court's directions aimed to facilitate a proper assessment of the waste tyres and enable the customs authority to make an informed decision on the release of the goods. This approach emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and regulations concerning hazardous waste management while also safeguarding the rights of the petitioner to seek the release of the goods based on expert evaluation.